Indeed, why should we believe the dogma that life is improved by 3.5 billion years of "evolution of the primary replicators", and just now miracle happened - there was a homo sapiens-sapiens-...etc?! This is obviously a - a religion. A variety of creationism!

Even now live on the ocean floor giant protozoa that leave the same traces as their ancestors did in the Wende.

So, at the beginning of Vendian to live like, even larger protozoa with developed intracellular eye where the lens was a vacuole, may have had the iris, akomodation..., and, of course, was the visual analyzer of information! Joining together in multi-cellular "firm", the protozoa did not invent the eye, they just built in a large observatory under a known sample.

2. Natural selection – refers to survivor of the fittest phenomenon, a negative selection process that eliminates/limits reproduction of the “unfit” individuals.

3. Positive selection - a process of stimulating reproduction of individuals with particular trait over others.

What I would like to discuss is the idea of evolution as it commonly refers to evolution of human kind (along with other species). Evolution as such is used to describe the process of change from simple to more complex organisms. Evolution of all life forms from bacteria as represented by the phylogenic tree of life.

I, however, have a fundamental problem with this idea. This theory at its core has an implied assumption that was (to my knowledge) ever discussed. The assumption is that we (and any other species of today) are MORE advanced than our predecessors. And I don’t believe that that is the case.

Reasoning:

First fact that points toward the idea of our superiority is that our brain is larger than that of our ancestors. However, we should know by now that it’s not quantity but quality that matters. Now that larger than normal brains have been linked to autism, I think it’s time to rethink this conclusion. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16151044).

My second problem is the idea of genome duplication. At first the genome duplication was said to be the driving force of evolution by providing the genetic material for mutations leading to additional function development. Now they are saying that idea could not be substantiated and opted to conclude that genome duplication prevented extinction (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/2 ... l.pdf+html). That is actually more consistent with the observed genome deterioration over time (take Y chromosome as an example). But does it mean that new polyploid species are superior when compared to their predecessors PRIOR to genome deterioration over time??? OR was it more like recouping the original vigor???

Lastly, selective breeding and domestication of animals for a single trait via positive selection process can bring about variety of other changes by allowing other recessive traits (traits that natural selection process would have eliminated). Thus, we, humans, are primarily responsible for variation in domestic animals and not nature.(https://johnwade.ca/attachments/article ... mstudy.pdf). This raises the question of how can we eliminate evidence of evolution that results of our efforts from natural changes in plants and animals on this planet?

So, evolution or de-evolution? Are we moving toward perfection or away from it?

Luxorien wrote:You can change the wording, but you are still asking if humans now are "better" in some fashion. The answer is the same: it depends. Everything is relative.

I am not asking for definitive answer. I am asking for opinions/arguments.

For example, we are less adapted to our environment than our ancestors because if you were to take away a single thing, like electricity, I would estimate at least half of the human population of earth would die within 6 month or so...

Cool post. I see this message board is ok with questioning dogma. Cool. John Sanford has a talk on youtube where he modeled mutation rate and shows mankind is DECAYING. It is based off evolutionary population geneticists analysis, their papers can be found on google. He has a good book also 'Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome'.

Luxorien wrote:You can change the wording, but you are still asking if humans now are "better" in some fashion. The answer is the same: it depends. Everything is relative.

I am not asking for definitive answer. I am asking for opinions/arguments.

For example, we are less adapted to our environment than our ancestors because if you were to take away a single thing, like electricity, I would estimate at least half of the human population of earth would die within 6 month or so...

And if you take shell off the crab he will die. If will you take off the horns of a deer, it would die. If you took away claws from lion he would die in a week. Even humans without electricity would survive longer. That's just how we evolved. It is part of our environment just as are buildings part of beavers life. And you cannot say they are natural.